FALGUNI GHOSH,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 47(1), KOLKATA

Registry has informed that both the appeals filed by the assessee are time barred by 8 days. Condonation application has been filed by the assessee stating as follows: “In the Matter of Shri Falguni Ghosh residing at Old-14, New-17, Kumar Para Lane, Liluah, Howrah 711204, Assessment year 2010- 11, PAN-ADZPG 6418Q in the matter of an Appeal against the order passed by Ld. Appeal Commissioner of NFAC U/s. 144/250 of Income Tax Act 1961, date of order 23/01/2023 for the above referred Assessment Year, Sir, your assessee I, Shri Falguni Ghosh beg to state before your honour that I from 15.03.2023 become seriously ill. A doctor was called for a treatment continued. The doctor advised me to take bed rest and not to think over anything. Due to such unavoidable ailment I failed to file the Appeal against the Assessment order passed by the Ld. Appeal Commissioner of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for the Assessment Year 2010-11 before your honour in time. Therefore, your assessee, I Sri. Falguni Ghosh fervently request your honour to condone delay what has caused due to illness which is beyond of avoidable and accept your assesses appeal for the Assessment year 2010-11. For this act of your kindness your assessee will ever remain grateful to your honour.” 2.1. Considering the condonation application and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented for reasonable cause from filing the instant appeals within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Assessment Year 2010-11: “1) It was not possible to comply in terms of statutory notice issued by Id. Appeal Commissioner, u/s 250, NFAC, from such distant place of stay. The appellant not engage any lawyer and tax expert for Page 2 of 5 .: 302 & 303/KOL/2023 AYs: 2010-11 & 2011

12. Falguni Ghosh. compliance on his behalf because of fund crisis. The non-compliance of statutory notice is therefore not intentional but due to compelling reason. 2) In making a best judgement assessment, the AO does not process absolute authority to assess any figure he likes, although he is not bound by strict judicial principals, he should be guided rule of justices, equity and good conscience. [CIT Vs. Ranichera Tea Co. Ltd. 207 ITR 979 (Cal)] 3) The authority making a best judgment assessment must make an honest and fair estimate of the income of assessee and through arbitrariness cannot be avoided; the same must not be capricious but should have a reasonable nexus with available material. This view has been expressed in Brij Bhushan Lal Parduman Kumar vs. CIT, reported at 115 ITR 574 (SC). 4) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the action of Ld. Commissioner ex-parte order without considering his further submission in CIT Appeal-10, Kolkata on the manual hearing which was unlawful and against the law of natural justice 5) That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, adduce or amend any grounds or grounds on or before the date of hearing of the appeal.” Assessment Year 2011-12: “1) (i) That on the facts and circumstance of the case, Ld. Commissioner is completing assessment under the ex-parte view has failed to appreciate that non-compliance of statutory notice is not intentional but due to compelling reason. ii) That on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, Ld. Commissioner is wrong and unjustified in passing order u/s 250 of I.T. Act,1961 without allowing reasonable, adequate and effective opportunity of hearing. 2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the action of Ld. Commissioner to consider the total deposit in bank account as unexplained investment and thereby making addition of Rs.38,71,196/- is erroneous, arbitrary and bad in law. 3) That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, adduce or amend any grounds or grounds on or before the date of hearing of the appeal.”